hrothgar Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 I really didn't expect the Supreme Court to rule the way they did... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhare Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 I was rooting for a 5-4 in favour :D... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 4 votes (including Kennedy) for "entire act unconstitutional", Roberts voting that mandate is not constitutional under commerce clause, only under taxing power -- this couldn't have been closer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 A victory for common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted June 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 4 votes (including Kennedy) for "entire act unconstitutional", Roberts voting that mandate is not constitutional under commerce clause, only under taxing power -- this couldn't have been closer... I agree that the restrictions on the Commerce Clause are worrysome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 I see that the bogus "you cannot regulate inactivity" argument won. Not sure that precedent will restrict the commerce clause a lot in future decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 I have to admit that the decision was closer than I thought it would be. Overturning healthcare reform would have hurt our businesses and those of many other folks we know. If Obama is reelected, we can work for incremental improvements. Now would be a good time for the democrats to educate all of the voters on just what the healthcare reforms do and don't do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhare Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Wonder how long before we see it spun around as the "unconstitutional tax" on you know where... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 I agree that the restrictions on the Commerce Clause are worrysomeMaybe the new made up limits on spending power will actually have more long-term impact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Sick, first I'm hearing about this, as someone without health insurance im not too pleased lol. Time to read up on this ruling I guess Edit: Well, actually I have health insurance till im 26. Thanks obama! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 I woke up this morning and saw this image on facebook And then spent the next several hours very, very confused about wtf was going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 I woke up this morning and saw this image on facebook And then spent the next several hours very, very confused about wtf was going on.Another Dewey Wins! headline. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lalldonn Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Sick, first I'm hearing about this, as someone without health insurance im not too pleased lol. Time to read up on this ruling I guess Edit: Well, actually I have health insurance till im 26. Thanks obama!Mandate doesn't kick in until 2014 and the penalties smart small and creep higher as its implemented over several years. I'm pretty sure you could pay the first year penalty just out of the loose change you leave all over the living room and kitchen floors over that year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Luke Warm was right, I was wrongthat shouldn't surprise you, it's not like it's the first time... i'm actually surprised it wasn't 6-3, though after oral arguments it seemed that kennedy wasn't convinced by the solicitor general I have to admit that the decision was closer than I thought it would be. Overturning healthcare reform would have hurt our businesses and those of many other folks we know.how would it have hurt your business? as far as the ruling itself goes, this actually might work in the reps favor, politically... i think the dems had a sherman-does-georgia strategy in place and ready to roll (though i don't know what it was)... now the reps can use this, as well as the economy, as campaign issues, though i don't know how successful it will be Edited June 28, 2012 by luke warm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 i'm actually surprised it wasn't 6-3, though after oral arguments it seemed that kennedy wasn't convinced by the solicitor generalYes, I was kind of expecting a 6-3 split also, and thought it just possible Roberts could frame the opinion to get all nine votes, as the court likes to do in momentous cases. how would it have hurt your business?Our businesses provide health insurance to all employees. Our premiums have had to be high enough to help cover costs of emergency care for the uninsured, who've been free-riders on the system. To keep premiums reasonable, the insured base should be universal. The other important feature of the reform establishes the principle that the government must step in to slow down the increase in health-care costs. The reform, as written, contains a number of provisions designed to get a handle on that, although more will need to be done in that area. This reform is not as good as a single-payer system, as you've pointed out yourself, but it's all that was politically possible to achieve in 2010. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 Sick, first I'm hearing about this, as someone without health insurance im not too pleased lol.You don't want health insurance? Sick indeed. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 From Yahoo News:The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of key provisions in the Affordable Care Act, the health care law commonly known as Obamacare, on Thursday, but on Capitol Hill, Republicans are vowing to press on with plans to fully repeal the law. I know the far right base will not change positions, but I am curious if moderates and independents aren't weary of watching this repeated petulant behavior from the GOP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 I know the far right base will not change positions, but I am curious if moderates and independents aren't weary of watching this repeated petulant behavior from the GOP.This is a few months old: http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/i7j6buza5k2wcggfmj4jjw.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 The Supreme Court upheld President Barack Obama's health care law on Thursday, but Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a possible Republican vice presidential contender who has refused to establish a federally mandated health care exchange in his state, said Friday that he will continue to ignore it In related news, Gov. Jindal also vowed to "hold his breath until he turned blue" and said, "Nhay, nyah, nyah! I can't hear you!" while placing his fingers in his ears in response to questions from reporters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 how would it have hurt your business? Our businesses provide health insurance to all employees. Our premiums have had to be high enough to help cover costs of emergency care for the uninsured, who've been free-riders on the system.at your business you have a plan that covers uninsured people? i've never heard of that... are you speaking of those who choose not to take the insurance? if not, who are you speaking of? most businesses *offer* (not provide) healthcare to their employees... do you pay the entire premium? This reform is not as good as a single-payer system, as you've pointed out yourself, but it's all that was politically possible to achieve in 2010.what i've said is, if you *must* have universal healthcare, only a single payer system is workable In related news, Gov. Jindal also vowed to "hold his breath until he turned blue" and said, "Nhay, nyah, nyah! I can't hear you!" while placing his fingers in his ears in response to questions from reporters.yeah, must be that 170 i.q. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 at your business you have a plan that covers uninsured people? i've never heard of that...The insurance premiums we pay subsidize the treatment of the uninsured. So does everyone else's. I'm surprised that you did not know that. Where did you think the money comes from to treat the uninsured? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 The insurance premiums we pay subsidize the treatment of the uninsured. So does everyone else's. I'm surprised that you did not know that. Where did you think the money comes from to treat the uninsured?no offense, but i'm pretty sure i know more about this than you do... you said: Our businesses provide health insurance to all employees. Our premiums have had to be high enough to help cover costs of emergency care for the uninsured, who've been free-riders on the system. you made it sound as if your company, individually, pays higher premiums to cover your employees... you worded things in a way that suggested you were speaking personally about your own company... btw, what company(s) insures your employees and how large a group is covered? do all your employees choose coverage, or do you simply pay the premiums for everyone? insurance companies, among others, use actuaries to determine premiums year to year... premiums vary, even within the same group, depending on level of coverage, which dependents are covered, type of plan, type of employee (active vs. retired), etc... i've dealt with actuaries for years, so i know what they use when computing premiums now it's true that providers change their rates year to year also, based on actual dollars and cents... they will not lose money, unless forced to do so by the gov't... and these increases in prices have to be and are accounted for by the actuaries, within legal limits... i think that's what you mean when you say we all pay for the uninsured, and in that sense it's true... but most businesses don't provide insurance to all employees, especially since to do so they'd have to pay too high a percentage of the premium, if not the whole premium... they do offer it to all employees, within limits (full time, active duty, etc), but offering and providing are two different words Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 you made it sound as if your company, individually, pays higher premiums to cover your employees... you worded things in a way that suggested you were speaking personally about your own company...Yes, I was speaking about the companies that my family owns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 It could be useful to have a substantial and realistic look at health policy as we move into the election. Mostly, it is a mess. Obama did not create the mess, it was a pre-existing condition. The llocal county paper (Carroll County Times) notes that somewhat upwards of 5% of our residents lack insurance. This includes 524 who are under the age of 18. I confess I know little or nothing of what happens when they need medical help. It is reasonable to ask what conservatives believe should happen. When I was six or so I contracted pneumonia. My mother called Dr. Setzer, he treated me, I survived, my mother paid him. This simple model is long since gone. Now I have Medicare. As part of my retirement I have supplemental coverage from Aetna. I have some sort of thing that pays something for eyeglasses. Something else for dental. And something for prescriptions. I need a consultant to keep it straight. Actually my wife is pretty patient with sorting through it, but she also gets confused. A family in our circle is going through a rough time. He lost his job, and his health coverage. They have kids and were elgible for some help, including really good health insurance. Then he got another job, so they lost that help. Fortunately (?) he lost that job so now they have the good insurance again. What is the conservative plan for health care? What should be the plan? Going back again to my childhood, I got hurt in a fall and my parents took me to the hospital. They would not admit me until my father went home and brought in proof he could pay. Is that what conservatives want? It would be a plan. My own selfish interests are in two areas. I would like enough clarity so that I do not have to attend three seminars to have some idea of what my coverage is. And I would like better doctors. I have had two friends with serious problems treated at Johns Hopkins. The care was excellent. But the local care for more modest issues is really pretty bad. I have had good health but I am 73 so I encounter doctors more often than I did thirty years ago. And my wife has had some issues, some of a serious nature. Once you get away from the major centers, the care sucks. Very large egos, very modest ability. Improving care is high on my list of desired features. Anyway, I would like to here what conservatives believe should happen to the uninsured when they need medical care. Let them die? This applies to children as well? Or should we say that those who can afford insurance must get it, and those who cannot afford it will be given some help? In short, the medical situation is a mess, Obama did not create the mess, what is the conservative plan for dealing with this mess? It could make for a very interesting discussion in an election year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Very large egos, very modest ability.Are we talking about doctors, or bridge players? ;) I agree with you, it's a mess. I don't count myself as a conservative, but I think if somebody needs treatment, he should get it. How we as a society pay for it, well, I don't have any killer ideas, but I will say I'm not sure the insurance model is the right way to go about it. My father was a cardiologist. One of his patients was a local farmer. Apparently the farmer didn't have the money to pay Dad, so every year he'd bring over half a dozen or so bushels of peaches and apples. They were good peaches and apples. I guess you pay what you can, and doctors of my Dad's generation, at least, accepted that. Dad did complain about the bean counters taking over, especially in hospitals. But I don't think he had any better idea than I do how to deal with the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.